It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

What are the 2-3 best introduction points that have to do with science?

page: 5
0
<< 2  3  4    6 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Mar, 8 2011 @ 07:58 AM
link   

Originally posted by bsbray11
reply to post by FDNY343
 


First I'm just wrong, and then when you realize you hadn't even read the article and had no clue what you were talking about, come back to admit you were wrong but couldn't even come to finish your edit without going on to ignorantly and erroneously next accuse me of "quotemining" when nothing I posted was inaccurate.
I guess there is no way I can ever get anything right after all the way you play your little game, huh "FDNY343"?

Thanks for reminding us that all we're doing is wasting our time with someone who cries when he should be man enough to own up to his own errors in judgment. Not to mention someone who just made 2 posts denying what was in an article he hadn't even bothered to read.
edit on 7-3-2011 by bsbray11 because: (no reason given)


What I COULD have done, had I been a dishonest man, was take out the first part, and leave the second part. But, I didn't, now did I?

Secondly, I read our QUOTEMINED excerpt of the article, and (to my suprise :@@
you've quotemined what the article said.

But, from what I have read, he doesn't believe what you claim he believes.




posted on Mar, 8 2011 @ 12:20 PM
link   
reply to post by FDNY343
 


Because no steel structure has ever collapsed from fire, except on 911, the code changes have mostly been for safety and firefighting, like added fire escapes and better elevators. To make the buildings stronger, perhaps they should incorporate more aluminum in new construction.

You're straying again though, although I don't blame you. You were going to provide your calculations proving a lightweight wingtip has enough mass, density, and momentum to cut structural steel.



posted on Mar, 8 2011 @ 12:25 PM
link   

Originally posted by Yankee451
reply to post by FDNY343
 


Because no steel structure has ever collapsed from fire, except on 911....


None? Never? At no time? Nowhere in the history of man has a steel structure ever collapsed due to fire?

Also, what constitutes a "steel structure"? Most buildings I know have some steel in the them, is there some parameter you're using for your special statement?



posted on Mar, 8 2011 @ 12:47 PM
link   

Originally posted by hooper

Originally posted by Yankee451
reply to post by FDNY343
 


Because no steel structure has ever collapsed from fire, except on 911....


None? Never? At no time? Nowhere in the history of man has a steel structure ever collapsed due to fire?

Also, what constitutes a "steel structure"? Most buildings I know have some steel in the them, is there some parameter you're using for your special statement?


Oh, you're a shrewd one...lol...since the topic is the steel sky scrapers on 911, I thought I could generalize, buuut you got me there boy. I guess my whole argument is crap now...shoot, what was I thinking.

But...just in case I left another hair out of place somewhere which you'll try to split, please correct the record for this "glaring error" to say that no steel framed skyscraper has ever collapsed due to fire...except on 911.

911research.wtc7.net...

In an attempt to bring it all back to the topic though, I'll reiterate to the OP:

As you can see from your thread, when confronted with Newton, the true believers will resort to any tactic to avoid the subject. I recommend Newton to be one of your 2-3 points.



posted on Mar, 8 2011 @ 02:10 PM
link   
reply to post by Yankee451
 



Oh, you're a shrewd one...lol...since the topic is the steel sky scrapers on 911, I thought I could generalize, buuut you got me there boy. I guess my whole argument is crap now...shoot, what was I thinking.

I take it then by your sarcastic tone that you are freely admitting that, of course, steel structures have collapsed before due to fire.

But...just in case I left another hair out of place somewhere which you'll try to split, please correct the record for this "glaring error" to say that no steel framed skyscraper has ever collapsed due to fire...except on 911.

So now you are qualifying your statement - steel "framed" skyscrapers only. Let me ask you, before 9/11 how many steel framed skyscrapers burned unabated for 5 hours? 1? 3? 7? 9? Does that really constitute a baseline?
If I were to read these declarations about fire and steel skyscrapers out of context I may be lead to believe that steel framed skyscrapers were ablaze in our major cities on a weekly basis and then, all of a sudden on 9/11/2001 one of them, for the first time ever, collapsed after being subjected to the same forces as the hundreds of other "steel framed" skyscrapers. On a side note, if I didn't know better I may also assume from the tone of the presentation that there was little or no variation in the design of skyscrapers, that they were a kind of "off the shelf" item.

As you can see from your thread, when confronted with Newton, the true believers will resort to any tactic to avoid the subject. I recommend Newton to be one of your 2-3 points.

I recommend this little bit from Mr. Newton:
"I can calculate the motion of heavenly bodies, but not the madness of people".



posted on Mar, 8 2011 @ 10:52 PM
link   

Originally posted by hooper
reply to post by Yankee451
 



Oh, you're a shrewd one...lol...since the topic is the steel sky scrapers on 911, I thought I could generalize, buuut you got me there boy. I guess my whole argument is crap now...shoot, what was I thinking.

I take it then by your sarcastic tone that you are freely admitting that, of course, steel structures have collapsed before due to fire.

But...just in case I left another hair out of place somewhere which you'll try to split, please correct the record for this "glaring error" to say that no steel framed skyscraper has ever collapsed due to fire...except on 911.

So now you are qualifying your statement - steel "framed" skyscrapers only. Let me ask you, before 9/11 how many steel framed skyscrapers burned unabated for 5 hours? 1? 3? 7? 9? Does that really constitute a baseline?
If I were to read these declarations about fire and steel skyscrapers out of context I may be lead to believe that steel framed skyscrapers were ablaze in our major cities on a weekly basis and then, all of a sudden on 9/11/2001 one of them, for the first time ever, collapsed after being subjected to the same forces as the hundreds of other "steel framed" skyscrapers. On a side note, if I didn't know better I may also assume from the tone of the presentation that there was little or no variation in the design of skyscrapers, that they were a kind of "off the shelf" item.

As you can see from your thread, when confronted with Newton, the true believers will resort to any tactic to avoid the subject. I recommend Newton to be one of your 2-3 points.

I recommend this little bit from Mr. Newton:
"I can calculate the motion of heavenly bodies, but not the madness of people".




Hey OP, seewhuddamean?



posted on Mar, 9 2011 @ 07:25 AM
link   

Originally posted by Yankee451
Because no steel structure has ever collapsed from fire,


Wrong. OH so VERY wrong!!

SC Sofa store fire causes collapse of steel roof in 47 minutes.

And that fire was fought.

Gee, imagine that.....steel fails in a fire? Say it ain't so.........


Originally posted by Yankee451

except on 911,


Wrong....


Originally posted by Yankee451
the code changes have mostly been for safety and firefighting,


Somewhat correct.


: increased structural integrity, enhanced fire resistance of structures, new methods for fire resistance, active fire protection, improved building evacuation, improved emergency response, improved procedures and practices, and education and training.




Originally posted by Yankee451
like added fire escapes and better elevators. To make the buildings stronger, perhaps they should incorporate more aluminum in new construction.


I see what you did there.


Originally posted by Yankee451

You're straying again though, although I don't blame you. You were going to provide your calculations proving a lightweight wingtip has enough mass, density, and momentum to cut structural steel.


Wingtip? Don't you mean the outer wing? The wingtip didn't cause much damage at all. But, as soon as I can get an accurate accounting of the wing's construction, I will.

Not that you won't handwave it away like you do the rest of....well.....anything that anyone posts.



posted on Mar, 9 2011 @ 10:53 AM
link   

Originally posted by FDNY343

Originally posted by Yankee451
Because no steel structure has ever collapsed from fire,


Wrong. OH so VERY wrong!!

SC Sofa store fire causes collapse of steel roof in 47 minutes.

And that fire was fought.

Gee, imagine that.....steel fails in a fire? Say it ain't so.........


Originally posted by Yankee451

except on 911,


Wrong....


Originally posted by Yankee451
the code changes have mostly been for safety and firefighting,


Somewhat correct.


: increased structural integrity, enhanced fire resistance of structures, new methods for fire resistance, active fire protection, improved building evacuation, improved emergency response, improved procedures and practices, and education and training.




Originally posted by Yankee451
like added fire escapes and better elevators. To make the buildings stronger, perhaps they should incorporate more aluminum in new construction.


I see what you did there.


Originally posted by Yankee451

You're straying again though, although I don't blame you. You were going to provide your calculations proving a lightweight wingtip has enough mass, density, and momentum to cut structural steel.


Wingtip? Don't you mean the outer wing? The wingtip didn't cause much damage at all. But, as soon as I can get an accurate accounting of the wing's construction, I will.

Not that you won't handwave it away like you do the rest of....well.....anything that anyone posts.


OP, see the pattern here? They go apoplectic when confronted with Newton. They'll grab any letter, word or statement that can be used to distract.

Stick with Newton if you want to make people think, then your opponents will be reduced to proving your point for you.
edit on 9-3-2011 by Yankee451 because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 9 2011 @ 11:41 AM
link   

Originally posted by bsbray11
NIST even set up a replica of a truss/perimeter system and put megawatt burners to it, which is exactly what they would have to do to test their hypothesis, but even at 700 C the truss wasn't able to exert any significant force on the perimeter column so they just said that this was for calibrating computer simulations. And then they tried multiple computer simulations while digitally increasing the fire's intensity in each simulation until they got to a result that they felt justified (but not proved) their hypothesis. This is stuff that would fail a middle school science project, except we're talking about an attempt to investigate the worst engineering disasters in recent history. I never bought the "we're too stupid as a species to figure this out" excuse, and I never will. Maybe you're too ignorant to figure out a way to prove they came down from fire alone, or then again maybe you're just wrong in assuming this must be the right explanation.


All right, fine. If you take exception to the "thermal deformation leading to loss of structural integrity of the steel" explanation, I can accept that...but the problem for you is that it then becomes your responsibility to provide an alternative scenario which better fits the facts. Up until now, all you people have come up with are these idiotic, "controlled demolitions", lasers from outer space", "nukes in the basement" etc Rube Goldberg schemes, as well as a blizzard of pathetic excuses as to why there isn't even a microbe of evidence to back any of your claims up.

The only thing that is irrefutably proven is that planes hit the towers, the towers caught on fire, and that the towers began collapsing at the exact point where the planes hit the towers. The scenario that the impacts of the planes caused a chain reaction of events that led to the collapse is therefore still the most reasonable explanation. The fact that the exact procession of the chain reaction of events are largely an unknown does not give you license to make things up to suit your own abject paranoia.

My original response to the OP is that there are way too many variables involved- the structural damage inflicted by the impact, the damage to the fire insulation and fire suppression systems, which specific component of the towers failed first- are all largely an unknown, so we cannot conclusively prove anything either way. You have not shown why anything I posted was incorrect.
edit on 9-3-2011 by GoodOlDave because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 9 2011 @ 12:01 PM
link   

Originally posted by GoodOlDave

All right, fine. If you take exception to the "thermal deformation leading to loss of structural integrity of the steel" explanation, I can accept that...but the problem for you is that it then becomes your responsibility to provide an alternative scenario which better fits the facts.


Stop right there; I call BS.

It most definitely is not the responsibility of anyone to explain any alternative scenario. Proving the government's story is a lie is enough. Without unfettered access to classified information people can speculate alternative theories that better suit the facts, but the extraordinary claims of the government are what require extraordinary proof. They claim the impossible; why?
edit on 9-3-2011 by Yankee451 because: (no reason given)

edit on 9-3-2011 by Yankee451 because: typo



posted on Mar, 9 2011 @ 01:18 PM
link   
reply to post by Yankee451
 



It most definitely is not the responsibility of anyone to explain any alternative scenario. Proving the government's story is a lie is enough.

Stop right there. That's the problem. You haven't proven anything, unless of course by proven, you mean repeat over and over again that its a lie but that's not "proving" anything. If you do not accept the explanation for the observed then you are obligated to explain how what was observed, happened.

Without unfettered access to classified information people can speculate alternative theories that better suit the facts, but the extraordinary claims of the government are what require extraordinary proof.

What extraordinary claims? Who declared them extraordinary? Are you the unilateral measure of what is and what is not extraordinary?

They claim the impossible; why?

No, you claim it is impossible - prove it.



posted on Mar, 9 2011 @ 01:20 PM
link   

Originally posted by Yankee451

Originally posted by GoodOlDave

All right, fine. If you take exception to the "thermal deformation leading to loss of structural integrity of the steel" explanation, I can accept that...but the problem for you is that it then becomes your responsibility to provide an alternative scenario which better fits the facts.


Stop right there; I call BS.

It most definitely is not the responsibility of anyone to explain any alternative scenario. Proving the government's story is a lie is enough. Without unfettered access to classified information people can speculate alternative theories that better suit the facts, but the extraordinary claims of the government are what require extraordinary proof. They claim the impossible; why


And yet, nobody has done such a thing. NOBODY have proven that NIST's conclusions are incorrect.

NOBODY.

Maybe you have that paper handy by chance? I mean, surely if you have something showing the NIST wrong, it would have been published in a respectable journal, no?

Oh wait, no, none of them are. They appear in Bentham (Sham) and a made-up journal which is the J.O.N.E.S., and both are crap.



posted on Mar, 9 2011 @ 02:13 PM
link   

Originally posted by Yankee451
Stop right there; I call BS.

It most definitely is not the responsibility of anyone to explain any alternative scenario. Proving the government's story is a lie is enough. Without unfettered access to classified information people can speculate alternative theories that better suit the facts, but the extraordinary claims of the government are what require extraordinary proof.


Baloney. If you are going to wallow in these alternative scenarios of sinister conspiracies involving secret controlled demolitions, lasers from outer space, or whatever...and we both know that you are....then it most definitely is your responsibility to make sure that they need to better fit all the facts than the thermal expansion scenario does. Otherwise, you're not looking at the evidence to derive an explanation. You're deriving the explanation and trying to force the evidence to conform to the explanation.


They claim the impossible; why?


Ahem...

"My original response to the OP is that there are way too many variables involved- the structural damage inflicted by the impact, the damage to the fire insulation and fire suppression systems, which specific component of the towers failed first- are all largely an unknown, so we cannot conclusively prove anything either way."



posted on Mar, 9 2011 @ 07:56 PM
link   
reply to post by hooper
 


I am not claiming a lightweight aluminum jet wing can slice through structural steel as we've been shown on Television.

Because we have invaded two nations and are currently engaged in a UAV war on wedding parties and funerals in a third, I would like to see the forensic evidence used by the government to prove that they are justified in these actions; if any war can be justified.



posted on Mar, 9 2011 @ 08:07 PM
link   
reply to post by Yankee451
 



I am not claiming a lightweight aluminum jet wing can slice through structural steel as we've been shown on Television.


You're not? Then who is? Because you're the only one I know that is claiming the wing sliced thorugh the steel.

Please give me some reference for this slicing action.



posted on Mar, 9 2011 @ 08:12 PM
link   

Originally posted by FDNY343


And yet, nobody has done such a thing. NOBODY have proven that NIST's conclusions are incorrect.


NOBODY.



Oh, the drama. It gives me chills...no wait, that's my skin crawling.

The reason nobody have proven their conclusions incorrect (NOBODY), is because they made sure their conclusions were inconsequential. They did this by making sure their objectives were meaningless. Note how they begin with assuming it was all caused by jets...so, referring to the NIST as proof of the existence of the alleged murder weapons is "logical phallicy" or something like that. They made sure they didn't need to investigate the murder weapon, they began and based their whole investigation on their assumptions that the murder weapons weren't in question. Big assumptions, considering the cost in lives.


The goals of the investigation of the WTC disaster were: • To investigate the building construction, the materials used, and the technical conditions that contributed to the outcome of the WTC disaster after terrorists flew large jet-fuel laden commercial airliners into the WTC towers. • To serve as the basis for: − Improvements in the way buildings are designed, constructed, maintained, and used; − Improved tools and guidance for industry and safety officials; − Recommended revisions to current codes, standards, and practices; and − Improved public safety The specific objectives were: 1. Determine why and how WTC 1 and WTC 2 collapsed following the initial impacts of the aircraft and why and how WTC 7 collapsed; 2. Determine why the injuries and fatalities were so high or low depending on location, including all technical aspects of fire protection, occupant behavior, evacuation, and emergency response; and 3. Determine what procedures and practices were used in the design, construction, operation, and maintenance of WTC 1, 2, and 7.


wtc.nist.gov...




Maybe you have that paper handy by chance? I mean, surely if you have something showing the NIST wrong, it would have been published in a respectable journal, no?



posted on Mar, 9 2011 @ 08:22 PM
link   
reply to post by Yankee451
 



Big assumptions, considering the cost in lives.


Really? Big assumptions? A huge jet plane loaded with jet fuel crashes at high speed into the building causing massive damage thorugh impact, explosion and resulting fire and the building collapses from the point of impact and its a BIG assumption that the collapse was the result of plane crash? Not only is it not a BIG assumption, you would need to have your head examined if you didn't think it was the cause.



posted on Mar, 9 2011 @ 08:28 PM
link   

Originally posted by hooper
reply to post by Yankee451
 



I am not claiming a lightweight aluminum jet wing can slice through structural steel as we've been shown on Television.


You're not? Then who is? Because you're the only one I know that is claiming the wing sliced thorugh the steel.

Please give me some reference for this slicing action.




The damage from the impact of a Boeing 767 aircraft (which is about 20 percent bigger than a Boeing 707) into each tower is well documented in NCSTAR 1-2. The massive damage was caused by the large mass of the aircraft, their high speed and momentum, which severed the relatively light steel of the exterior columns on the impact floors. The results of the NIST impact analyses matched well with observations (from photos and videos and analysis of recovered WTC steel) of exterior damage and of the amount and location of debris exiting from the buildings. This agreement supports the premise that the structural damage to the towers was due to the aircraft impact and not to any alternative forces.


wtc.nist.gov...

Note the close up images of the slicing action linked below.




posted on Mar, 9 2011 @ 08:41 PM
link   

Originally posted by hooper
reply to post by Yankee451
 



Big assumptions, considering the cost in lives.


Really? Big assumptions? A huge jet plane loaded with jet fuel crashes at high speed into the building causing massive damage thorugh impact, explosion and resulting fire and the building collapses from the point of impact and its a BIG assumption that the collapse was the result of plane crash? Not only is it not a BIG assumption, you would need to have your head examined if you didn't think it was the cause.


And you're making it too. If you're relying on TV video as your proof, just say it.



posted on Mar, 9 2011 @ 08:50 PM
link   
reply to post by Yankee451
 


Well, that and my sister's eyewitness.



new topics

top topics



 
0
<< 2  3  4    6 >>

log in

join